Boscolo v Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal [2014] NSWSC 1543

Boscolo v Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal [2014] NSWSC 1543

The Court refused the adjournment because the plaintiff provided no sufficient material or substantial reason for non-attendance, the judicial review proceedings had been on foot for nearly a year, had not been progressed, and the interests of justice did not support an adjournment. The proceedings were dismissed under r 12.7 because they had been before the Court sixteen times, the plaintiff was still not in a position to proceed, the matter had not been prosecuted with due dispatch, and the balance of interests, including prejudice to the defendant and the public interest in efficient administration of justice, favoured dismissal.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 October 2014
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Proceedings Seeking Orders Setting Aside Orders of the Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal / Application for Adjournment Refused; Proceedings Dismissed for Want of Due Dispatch Under R 12.7 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005
Outcome
The Amended Summons filed 21 July 2014 and the proceedings generally were dismissed, and the plaintiff was ordered to pay the second defendant's costs.
Legal Topics
['adjournment' 'summary Disposal' 'dismissal for Want of Due Dispatch' 'interests of Justice']
['civil Procedure' 'judicial Review'] ['adjournment' 'summary Disposal' 'dismissal for Want of Due Dispatch' 'interests of Justice']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Proceedings Seeking Orders Setting Aside Orders of the Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal / Application for Adjournment Refused; Proceedings Dismissed for Want of Due Dispatch Under R 12.7 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the proceedings should be adjourned when the plaintiff did not appear and sought a two-week adjournment by telephone on the morning of hearing.' 'Whether the proceedings should be dismissed because the plaintiff had not prosecuted them with due dispatch under r 12.7 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court refused the adjournment because the plaintiff provided no sufficient material or substantial reason for non-attendance, the judicial review proceedings had been on foot for nearly a year, had not been progressed, and the interests of justice did not support an adjournment. The proceedings were dismissed under r 12.7 because they had been before the Court sixteen times, the plaintiff was still not in a position to proceed, the matter had not been prosecuted with due dispatch, and the balance of interests, including prejudice to the defendant and the public interest in efficient administration of justice, favoured dismissal.

Court Disposition

The Amended Summons filed 21 July 2014 and the proceedings generally were dismissed, and the plaintiff was ordered to pay the second defendant's costs.

Orders

  • ['The Amended Summons filed 21 July 2014 and the proceedings generally be dismissed.' "Order the plaintiff to pay the second defendant's costs."]